Cited by 74Urban Green Space and HealthDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management

How does nature exposure make people healthier?: Evidence for the role of impulsivity and expanded space perception

Open access
Repke, Meredith A., Berry, Meredith S., Conway, Lucian G., Metcalf, Alexander, Hensen, Reid M., Phelan, Conor·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Nature exposure has been linked to a plethora of health benefits, but the mechanism for this effect is not well understood. We conducted two studies to test a new model linking the health benefits of nature exposure to reduced impulsivity in decision-making (as measured by delay discounting) via psychologically expanding space perception. In study 1 we collected a nationwide U.S. sample (n = 609) to determine whether nature exposure was predictive of health outcomes and whether impulsive decision-making mediated the effect. Results indicated that Nature Accessibility and Nature Exposure From Home significantly predicted reduced scores on the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales (DASS) (p < .001, p = .03, respectively) and improved general health and wellbeing (p < .001, p < .01, respectively). Nature Accessibility also predicted reduced impulsive decision-making (p < .01), and Nature Accessibility showed significant indirect effects through impulsive decision-making on both the DASS (p = .02) and general health and wellbeing (p = .04). In Study 2, a lab-based paradigm found that nature exposure expanded space perception (p < .001), and while the indirect effect of nature exposure through space perception on impulsive decision-making did not meet conventional standards of significance (p < .10), the pattern was consistent with hypotheses. This combination of ecologically-valid and experimental methods offers promising support for an impulsivity-focused model explaining the nature-health relationship.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0202246

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 113 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Institute of Medicine (US). Rebuilding the unity of health and the environment: A new vision of environmental health for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001. 22896869
  2. [28]Wilson EO. Biophilia. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA, USA; 1984
  3. [42]Pretty J, Peacock J, Hine R, Sellens M, South N, Griffin M. Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2007; 50(2): 211– 231.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Repke, M. A., Berry, M. S., Conway, L. G., Metcalf, A., Hensen, R. M., & Phelan, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Montana (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Repke, Meredith A.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-08-22
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
e0202246
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888564385
Cited by
74
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Keywords
nature exposure, impulsivity, delay discounting, impulsive decision-making, spatial perception, mental health, depression, anxiety, stress, well-being, health status, mediation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Decision Making, Female, Health Promotion, Health Status, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Space Perception, United States, Nature, Young Adult, Delay Discounting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review